Chapter 7 Cooperative initiatives in off-campus development and delivery

Geoff Ashurst
Victorian TAFE Off-Campus Network

Introduction

With Australia's relatively small population, the degree of duplication
and fragmentation in the education system is perhaps surprising to an outsider.
However, it is an inevitable result of our State based education systems.
Likewise, the historical development of TAFE saw an entrenchment of curriculum
development within State borders. Indeed, with its decentralised system,
Victoria has even seen within individual TAFE colleges, simultaneous curriculum
development dealing with the same content area at the same time.

The lack of a comprehensive system of information sharing using modern
electronic technology (and updated in real time as to who is doing what
and when), perhaps together with the lack of incentive to find out, led
to an entrenchment of the State based system. The few souls who tried to
break out of the pattern by considering curricula developed interstate
were defeated frequently by the "not made here" syndrome, masquerading
as adherence to local standards.

In external studies courses, the need for cooperation is possibly even
more persuasive because course development for external studies inevitably
involves a team, usually with a coordinator, combining the skills of instructional
design, curriculum development, educational technology, content expertise
and writing of learning materials. Considerable coordination of skills
is required when course development occurs outside the providing institution.
The coordination required is magnified if the members of development teams
are located in different States.

Two major issues currently facing educators are how to foster and implement
necessary change and how to do more with fewer resources. Appropriate curriculum
development has the potential to provide answers to both questions through
cooperative ventures in off-campus development and delivery of study materials
in TAFE. There are now examples of Australia-wide courses in TAFE external
studies. Investigations are proceeding to examine the feasibility of off-shore
operations as well. Nation-wide curriculum development in TAFE is already
a reality. Curriculum development for an international arena is now a real
possibility.

This chapter looks at some models of interstate cooperation in the development
and delivery of curriculum materials. The models emerged from the findings
of a nation-wide survey of the cooperative development efforts by TAFE
external studies organisations. The paper points out the problems involved
in cooperative efforts to develop TAFE off-campus curriculum materials;
discusses the advantages to be gained from increasing such efforts; describes
briefly four contrasting models of cross-State curriculum development and
delivery; and identifies those factors which are considered essential and
those which are important for the success of cooperative ventures. These
were the main issues which arose from the research data.

Problems in cooperative development

The TAFE External Studies Authorities in the six Australian States1
have developed their own study materials largely independently of each
other, so that six sets of materials in very similar curriculum areas have
been developed within similar time frames. The six TAFE External Authorities
have different structures and formats, different methods of operation and
different strengths and weaknesses.

Consequently, while there has been considerable good will between the
States and a willingness to cooperate for about 40 years, the complexities
have encouraged policy-makers to place interstate cooperation in the too
hard basket. The Head of the Victorian TAFE Off Campus Network (VTOCN)
summed up the situation as being stymied by three syndromes: the "not
made here" syndrome; the "I don't know what they're offering
syndrome"; and the "I can't wait until they improve it"
syndrome.

These problems are exacerbated by internal State problems of administration
and authority. Most State TAFE systems operate centralised, hierarchical
decision-making bureaucracies for planning and curriculum development processes.
Moreover, some States see external studies as responsible merely for implementing
an off-campus version of an on-campus course. Thus some TAFE external studies
organizations are not in control of their own development. They find difficulties
in contributing to a nationally based process which may not be on the Head
Office agenda, even when they might be willing to do so. A related problem
is that participation in national ventures might have to be at the expense
of courses required locally. Very different development priorities operate
at any one time between the six States.

While a climate of interstate sharing and cooperation first emerged
in the 1940s and was strengthened in the 1970s following the Kangan (1975)
and Grimwade (1979) Reports, the lack of a national TAFE focus or identity
has retarded practical implementation of the concept. Since the 1970s,
the most dramatic development for curriculum development in TAFE on a national
basis has been the establishment of the Curriculum Projects Steering Group
which has fostered the concept of national core curricula. Unfortunately,
the TAFE external studies authorities, which develop more curriculum materials
than any other, have no direct representation on the Curriculum Projects
Steering Group. This apparent oversight has had serious educational and
cost effectiveness consequences for TAFE.

The enthusiasm of individuals and project teams involved in cooperation,
whether for intrastate or interstate developments, has been attenuated
by two entrenched attitudes. The first is a tendency by curriculum experts
towards minimisation rather than incrementalism. This occurs when curriculum
experts, in reviewing learning materials developed in other States, concentrate
on what is not common or acceptable, rather than on what is acceptable,
even if some adaptation is required. It is easier to dismiss the whole,
on the basis that it won't work, than to redevelop what is unsatisfactory.
The other problem is the "not made here" syndrome. Curriculum
developers working in narrow fields retain a surprisingly strong professional
jealousy of their colleagues interstate. Unless they themselves participate
in the development of a curriculum, they have no sense of ownership and
resist its introduction. Evidence from this study suggested that these
attitudes, while still prevalent, are breaking down.

Additional problems for vocationally-based courses

State based legislation, together with the fact that education and training
in TAFE is also State based, make common syllabi across Australia problematic
particularly in vocationally based courses. In the study just undertaken,
practitioners in interstate cooperative developments constantly referred
to different State legislative requirements as a barrier to more effective
cooperation. One recent example of an attempt to overcome this difficulty
occurred in the Certificate of Technology (Quarrying) cooperative development,
where each State undertook to write a module covering legal aspects peculiar
to their State. In this case, the core materials were developed by Victoria
for implementation nation-wide. The development of the Certificate of Technology
(Quarrying) is discussed in more detail later in this paper.

Consultation with the industry and/or professional bodies regarding
any new vocational course is widely accepted practice within TAFE both
for syllabus design and curriculum development. However, there were examples
found in which the industry and/or professional body at the national level
was not always in agreement with its own State counterparts. This makes
interstate cooperative development more difficult. It is suggested that
the most senior bureaucrats in TAFE should be prepared to stand firm in
the face of industry pressure in cases such as these and should require
consistency from industry prior to the commencement of projects. Curriculum
development should not take place without a consistent and recognised industry
position being in place.

In some States, there are legislative requirements specifying a minimum
number of contact hours for a qualification. Alternatively, substantial
differences in courses in the same content area from State to State may
be based historically. Whatever the reason, this represents a substantial
barrier to nation-wide development and creates problems for curriculum
developers. For example, in Accounting, three major differences were discovered:
only NSW assumes a system approach to introductory Accounting; only in
Queensland are stages integral to Accounting courses; different class contact
hours exist in Accounting (course requirements are 900 hours in SA and
1300 hours in NSW). Another example occurs in hairdressing: NSW integrates
men's and women's hairdressing, while some other States treat them separately.

Ideally, syllabus documentation should result from a partnership between
industry experts and consultants working with content and instructional
designers and other educationalists to deal with educational strategy.
Practitioners in the preparation of external studies materials, however,
report a tendency to overkill by the experts. Both industry experts and
project consultants, while making valuable contributions to the development
process, have a tendency to argue for over-specialisation in the curriculum
materials and an unrealistic expectation of the demands that should be
placed on potential students of the course. Curriculum content often exceeds
what reasonably ought to be asked of students.

In the preparation of external studies materials, practitioners often
criticise the standard of syllabus documentation from which they have to
work. In many cases, syllabus documentation does not even exist, yet it
is expected that curriculum development will take place. In other cases
where it does exist, the syllabus is not interpretable by intending writers
of the course materials and has to be reinterpreted by the project team
involved in the interstate cooperative venture.

It is recommended that a nation-wide TAFE project should be funded to
expound a consistent approach across Australian Standard Classification
of Occupations areas in the preparation of syllabus documentation. Of prime
importance for outcomes would be guidelines which ensure a logical coherent
structure to syllabus documentation and hence curriculum development.

Why interstate cooperative development?

Rather than six States each developing their own learning materials,
it has to be more cost effective if one set of materials (with possible
additional materials developed in each State to meet local idiosyncrasies)
is developed for Australia-wide implementation. This is particularly important
because all States' external studies organisations have development and
delivery demands placed on them far in excess of the capacity of their
budgets.

The time taken to develop materials is considerably reduced because
each participating State contributes a part rather than undertaking the
whole. As will be noted in a later section, the Banking and Finance development
project divided the curriculum into five core areas, with each of five
participating States responsible for one area. By this method the States
each contributed about 20 per cent of the resources required for full scale
development, yet still obtained a full set of appropriate course materials.
Provided that the project is sufficiently well planned and coordinated,
there is minimal disruption to regular activities. Some project team members
have complained about being expected to undertake work on an interstate
project in addition to a normal work load. A potential solution to this
problem would be for interstate projects to attract specific purpose funding.

If all States make a realistic contribution overall, learning materials
can be used by a State that may not have contributed directly to the development.
Genuine national development would ensure that the needs of all States
are met, whether they participate or not. Given the potential for marketing
off-campus learning materials in other countries, an international dimension
to this cannot be ruled out. If international ventures are successful,
the revenue generated could provide one answer to the difficult question
of resourcing. The more successful the courses are internationally, the
more revenue will be generated.

Cooperative ventures in off-campus development and delivery between
the six Authorities would draw attention to the differences between the
six States in areas such as structure, format, method of operation and
other strengths and weaknesses. It would lead to a cross-fertilisation
of ideas and, one hopes, improvements in practice in each of the six Authorities.
States therefore would learn from each other, adopting the best features
from other Authorities as appropriate. Educational effectiveness would
be enhanced by the involvement of a much wider educational community than
can be used under existing procedures for normal intrastate developments.

The study revealed that members of staff who had participated in interstate
cooperative ventures were enthused by the experience. It was described
as professional development in action. The potential for the cross-fertilisation
of ideas by staff working for different organisations and with possible
different cultures and history was maximised. Those involved felt that
the process could be taken a stage further by either staff exchanges on
an incremental basis or job swaps.

Models of interstate cooperation: Four case studies

The logistics, resourcing and planning required for major accredited
courses make them difficult ventures despite the fact that they enrol the
greatest student numbers and they are in high demand in all States. The
most feasible types of courses for transfer interstate without adaptation
are short vocational courses or single subjects which are vocationally
or industry specific and can be readily adapted for use in a State other
than that of origin. In 1986, for example, NSW worked in the areas of Dairy
Technology and the Coxswain's Course, both of which are examples of short
vocational courses which are vocationally or industry specific and can
be readily adapted for use in other States. Access area subjects, especially
mathematics, basic sciences and English are easily transportable across
State borders as well. WA, SA and Victoria cater for external studies in
the hobby/enrichment area. Interstate cooperation in this area would be
desirable between these three States. In fact, such courses often can be
transferred from one State to another in their entirety, because they are
not subject to State accreditation, and can be offered wherever they meet
a need.

Multi-State developments, by contrast, require considerable pre-planning
and commitment not only from the project organisers, but also from key
figures in both TAFE external studies authorities and the Head Office hierarchy.

Cooperative ventures for curriculum development of large enrolment,
vocationally specific, accredited courses are complex operations. While
such ventures have considerable spin-offs in terms of cost and educational
effectiveness, they are virtually in their infancy and development has
occurred more on an experimental basis than as a clearly defined methodological
direction. The situation has not been helped by an equivocal attitude taken
by TAFE officers at senior levels. Support from senior officers appears
strong in principle, but is more restrained when it is sought for specific
projects. Four different models which were identified in the study, are
illustrated by the representative case studies below.

Banking and Finance As an example of multi-State development, the Banking and Finance project
proceeded smoothly and developed successfully. There were a number of factors
in its favour. These included the early involvement of the industry and
agreement between the various sectors of the Bankers' Institute; agreement
between the States on a common syllabus document format; and a shared perception
of the curriculum development process whereby the core element was split
five ways between the cooperating States. The individual State authorities
involved were New South Wales (Financial Institutions and Markets), Queensland
(Banking and Lending Practice), Victoria (Commercial Banking and Finance),
South Australia (International Banking and Finance), and Western Australia
(Financial Institutions and the Law).

It was agreed also in the negotiation phase that each State would be
able to develop additional material beyond the core for its own State to
meet local State idiosyncrasies such as legislation and accreditation requirements.
When actually developing learning materials, it was discovered that it
was important to split the core in a way representing a relatively equally
shared workload for the participating States.

It was recognised that the organising State's deadlines were not necessarily
going to be convenient, or possible, for those in other TAFE Authorities.
This was resolved by the release of master copies from the State producing
the learning materials to the other States as soon as they had been produced.
Each State then assumed responsibility for printing its own materials to
meet its own deadlines and administrative peculiarities.

Quarrying An alternative model was the one-State development for national implementation
used when Victoria developed the Certificate of Technology (Quarrying).
Victoria agreed at the outset to release the materials to the other States
if they wanted to deliver the course themselves. Advantages over the first
model were that the logistics were reduced, coordination was less complex
and completion dates easier to predict.

Special circumstances did obtain in this case. In the first place, the
Curriculum Projects Steering Group had asked Victoria to develop the on-campus
course. A major reason for this was that operators in the industry needed
the qualification to practise in Victoria. Another factor, from the off-campus
point of view, was that the Institute of Quarrying matched internally generated
Victorian TAFE Off-Campus resources to ensure that the venture was not
only started but completed within the proposed time frame.

Two major impediments to one-State development are that certain materials
cannot be transferred readily across State borders and that a single State
must find sufficient resources within its own budget to enable many ventures
of this type to proceed.

Trading Standards A third model involved the division of labour between States. This
approach required that each of the participating States provide the necessary
number of project team members, whether writers, consultants, industrial
designers, educational technologists, curriculum developers, editors, etc.
A detailed case study of this project appears in Chapter 5 of this volume.

This approach can be less equitable because the most demanding activities
centre around developing materials, especially the writing and editing.
In-depth interviews with some of those involved in the Trading Standards
project revealed that the logistical problems were increased beyond those
experienced in Banking and Finance, since the project teams were based
interstate and ready consultation was not always possible. Logistical and
coordination difficulties were exacerbated. It was more difficult for the
project teams to meet, and written and oral communication between project
team members was made difficult by the distance problem despite modern
communications technologies. Inevitably this had some adverse effect on
the time taken and the level of disruption to normal activities. Project
teams operate more effectively in a face-to-face environment.

This approach therefore is not as effective as the other two, particularly
when the overall costs in terms of financial and educational effectiveness
are taken into account. For example, not all segments of the Trading Standards
development were designed specifically for the course. Some segments were
taken in their entirety from other courses and new covers placed on the
printed learning materials. This clearly has an adverse effect on educational
effectiveness.

Accounting Following the preparation and adoption by the States of a national
core curriculum in TAFE Accounting, the Curriculum Projects Steering Group
agreed to the development of selected modules for use by all States. The
project was coordinated nationally by the Department of TAFE, South Australia.
Accounting seemed to be a logical choice for interstate cooperation. It
is a course with a very high enrolment. Recent agreements meant that the
new course would be implemented in all States. However, three major problems
arose at the outset.

Despite the existence of a national core curriculum, State TAFE authorities
did not adopt uniform curricula for individual subjects. As a result, the
agreed compulsory core content was divided and fragmented over the whole
course. In other words, the same compulsory content was divided into varying
combinations of subjects in each of the States.

Representatives from some of the States were chosen for their experience
in developing accounting external materials and not for any position of
authority in the State TAFE hierarchy. Consequently they felt unable to
commit their organisations to necessary planning decisions, such as accepting
responsibility for development of a subject, and compliance with uniform
layout standards.

Different computer systems and software packages were recommended by
State Authorities for use within the course in different States.

It was agreed that the most practicable strategy for joint development
was for each State to develop materials separately for a single subject
and that, on completion, the materials developed would be made available
to all other States. Subjects were allocated as follows: Introduction to
Budgeting to South Australia; Accounting Subsystems to New South Wales;
Financial Reporting to Victoria.

Queensland subsequently agreed to develop Introduction to Accounting.
Generally, the States agreed to develop topics for which they had available
resource people. At present, despite having representatives participate
in discussions, Tasmania and Western Australia have not indicated that
they are developing a subject to contribute to the common pool. There is
evidence of resentment by the participating States over the lack of contribution
from these two States.

Each State has based its materials to some extent on previous versions
of the subjects in development. In hindsight, it would have been more valuable
for all or at least several States to exchange copies of existing materials
to be used as source material in the new developments. This is one aspect
in which communications between project groups suffered because of the
"tyranny of distance" and the "do what you can when you
can" aspect of this project as an additional load undertaken by the
participating staff.

Whilst some degree of modification will be unavoidable, experience of
the Victorian subject development suggests that the inclusion of interstate
consultants in the development team (as opposed to local members who are
more involved in day to day activities) could reduce significantly the
need for States to undertake modifications of completed materials. Writing
and consulting was contracted to Victorians. However, a second content
consultant was employed as part of the development team to review the work
of the writer from a NSW course perspective. A number of changes to drafts
were made as a result of review comments made by the NSW consultant. As
a result, the completed materials will transfer more readily outside Victoria
than they otherwise would have.

Although most subjects devised within each State were broadly equivalent
to subjects in other States, variations in content did exist. Consequently,
it was agreed that small, topic-based modules of material would be developed
to allow all states to combine modules applying to their particular syllabuses
and to develop additional modules as necessary to make up complete sets
of subject study materials.

Due to the emphasis on computers in the National Core Curriculum, this
has meant a high commitment of resources by each State. No resolution of
the incompatibility of computing facilities was achieved. Consequently,
development of the computer content of the study materials remains as each
State's separate responsibility. This has severely compromised the Accounting
course as an effective example of interstate cooperation in the development
and delivery of learning materials.

The task would have been simplified greatly if the TAFE Accounting course
planners in each State had adopted the spirit and not just the letter of
the National Core Curriculum and agreed upon a more uniform collection
of subjects within the structure of the course. In the absence of any scheme
for obtaining subject uniformity, the off-campus materials development
project would have proceeded more smoothly with closer consultation between
the States and greater centralisation in planning and management functions.
This would have entailed the release of at least one person to devote the
necessary coordination time to the project on a regular basis and an increase
in the budget to allow greater interaction between the States in the planning
and production phases.

These four case studies were an invaluable source of data for the next
section, which identifies those factors which are considered essential
and others which are important for success in interstate ventures in the
development and delivery of learning materials in TAFE external studies.

Variables for success of interstate cooperative ventures

The study included brainstorming a variety of issues involved in interstate
cooperative ventures. These were tested for their relative importance with
a number of policy makers in TAFE Head Offices and External Studies Organisations.
Virtually every person who had been involved at the implementation level
in any interstate cooperative development was also interviewed. (For the
purpose of the research, those at the implementation level were distinguished
from the policy makers.)

Essential prerequisites The result was that the following matters were considered to be essential
prerequisites for success for interstate cooperative ventures.

Action plans should have realistic time frames. While this may seem
obvious, respondents often referred to this as a problem, citing the fact
that many practitioners in learning materials development in external studies,
let alone less experienced outsiders, inevitably underestimate the time
required to produce quality materials. Some of those who had been involved
most heavily in interstate cooperative development felt that an essential
feature of the pre-planning phase was for project team members to be allocated
either full-time or part-time to the project for a designated period using
specific purpose funding.

As far as possible, a common syllabus format and broad agreement on
course content and objectives should be achieved in advance. These emerge
as fundamental to curriculum development processes. Writers of course materials
sometimes find a syllabus unintelligible as a guide to preparing external
studies materials. Syllabus documents need to be drafted following a more
consistently logical structure.

A high level of input from industry and/or professional body is needed
in advance. The industry and/or professional body sometimes can be used
to help bring about consensus. One problem with industry experts can be
their over-sophistication and over-specialisation of curriculum requirements.
Their expectations of students can also be unrealistic.

Accredited status for interstate cooperative developments is needed
in each State. This is an essential process for vocationally based courses.
State based representatives should not agree to proceed unless this is
guaranteed. The research suggests that streamlining of this process would
be a major advance.

Coordination by an identified person at national level is needed. One
person should be recognised as steering the project.

Coordination by an identified person at local (State) level is needed.
This item and the one above are seen as essential because of the complexity
of the coordination involved and the logistical problems that develop without
effective coordination.

An initial face-to-face meeting of all project team personnel is regarded
as essential.

If these prerequisite features are not in place prior to the action
phase, it is recommended that the project not proceed. If a project does
proceed nevertheless, one or all of cost effectiveness, educational effectiveness,
time taken, responsiveness or the flow of normal activities will be compromised.

Other important factors for success There were also a number of issues which respondents considered to
be helpful, but not necessarily essential, for the success of interstate
cooperative ventures.

Determination of the instructional design in advance.

Determination of the surface design (formatting, headings, etc.) in
advance.

Achievement of credentialled status for interstate cooperative developments
in each State, including cross-crediting arrangements. This can be more
difficult than is apparent at first sight - for example, one State offers
Accounting at Advanced Certificate level, another at Associate Diploma
level.

Active support from both senior management (Principal, Deputy Principal
and TAFE bureaucracy) and the immediate supervisor of the implementor(s)
in each State.

Regular face-to-face meetings and/or audio teleconferences preferably
with fax facilities available to all project team members.

Staff exchanges particularly at the level of those teachers/academic
staff actually developing and delivering the learning materials. External
studies operations and culture in the six States are quite different due
to historical development. Staff exchanges help practitioners to understand
and allow for these differences.

A videotex-based clearing house system and an interstate networked
computer system updated in real time. (The WA Coursefinder system appears
to be the most useful at the moment in TAFE.)

Conclusion

Cooperation and sharing have been practised by educators for many years.
In the TAFE sector the origins can be traced back to the 1940s. According
to a literature search, educational institutions and systems have been
more willing to practise sharing and cooperation in the delivery rather
than the development of learning materials. Cooperation in the development
of learning materials in TAFE is a recent phenomenon, perhaps occasioned
by the exigencies of the times. This chapter has demonstrated that a variety
of models is possible and has summarised the experience to date by reporting
case study examples. It also suggests that there could be a bright future
for the development and delivery of learning materials in TAFE external
studies, provided that all those legitimately involved are prepared to
be flexible and to learn from the experiences referred to in this chapter.

Endnote

The ACT TAFE sector does not offer external studies, while Northern
Territory TAFE does not develop its own learning materials.

Kangan, M. (Chair) (1974). TAFE in Australia: Report on needs in
technical and further education. Canberra: Australian Government Printing
Services.

The author acknowledges the support of the Commonwealth
Tertiary Education Commission's Standing Committee on External Studies
without whose support the research on which this paper is based could not
have proceeded.